From Climate Scepticism

By John Ridgway

But we might as well be.

Back in April 2019, on the eve of the launch of the Environmental Justice Commission, one of its co-chairs could be found on the Today Programme passionately stating his case. It matters that we should look back on this exchange, because the same gentleman ultimately became the UK’s current Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. Yes, we are talking of none other than the Rt Hon Edward Miliband.

With much animated flailing of arms and bulging of eyes, Ed ran through the full range of arguments for plunging the UK headlong down the road to Net Zero: it will improve our lives; we must show ‘moral authority’ to China; we must not go down in history as the generation that failed, etc. When challenged upon the need to mobilise support for his crusade, he replied with this:

“No, but that’s the point about the emergency. Look, if this was genuinely a war, and we were on a war footing — and it is a war against climate change…”

Miliband was interrupted mid-flow at that point by an interviewer who was not coy at calling out his Churchillian tone. But Miliband didn’t seem to care. He had got his message out there: this is a war against climate change.

This is not the first or indeed last time that someone has invoked the metaphor of war to justify actions to be taken on climate change. For example, we had it at COP26 from King Charles. Then there is the proselytising of The Guardian’s George Monbiot. Way back in 2008, UN Deputy Secretary-General Asha-Rose Migiroa claimed that achieving the Millennium Development Goals would require a ‘war footing’ to tackle climate change. Like Miliband, they all talk about a war footing, and like Miliband they do so even though they know perfectly well that we are not genuinely at war. Ah, but if we were…

Should that matter? Is it a problem that prominent people are proposing measures that are only appropriate in times of actual war, simply because they feel justified in using the term ‘war’ metaphorically? Should we really accept poetic analogy as a legitimate substitute for facts?

One might also ask how Miliband can talk of a war footing (and the imposed hardships implied) at the same time as claiming that the actions required will be inherently beneficial to us all. If it were so obvious that Net Zero measures really did promise an improvement in everyone’s lives, and if it were the only way of saving our moral souls, then surely it should be easy for him to win the support he desires. There would be no need to wave an arm or bulge an eye. People would be rushing to the barricades, because the war on climate is such good fun and it shows moral authority. One certainly shouldn’t require the undemocratic instigation of a war economy, nor any imposed sacrifice. Because, mark my words, that’s what these folk are deeming necessary; that’s what a war footing is – a restructuring of society designed to mobilise resources and create the ‘right decision architecture’ without the need to worry about punishment at the ballot box. That is ultimately what these people are asking for: more power to protect us from ourselves.

We use the term ‘war’ very loosely when we talk of war on crime or war on drugs. Even ‘war on terrorism’ is incorrect because war is a state of conflict between two or more states. It is declared (though not so much for recent conflicts) in order that international laws such as the Geneva Convention may be applied. The declaration of a war also matters because a wartime government can then invoke additional domestic powers. For example, in the UK the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 can be used to declare a state of emergency, with a concomitant curtailment of civil liberties. But, of course, with climate change there is no real war, so there cannot be a wartime state of emergency. But that’s not a problem if you can declare a phony war and use it as a pretext to invoke a phoney state of emergency. And boy, have we seen plenty of those! As far as local councils are concerned, not declaring a state of emergency over climate change has become a badge of dishonour akin to wartime treason or cowardice in the face of the enemy.

According to Miliband, tackling climate change is a war in the very real sense of it not being a genuine war. But these mental gymnastics doesn’t really seem to be holding him back. The war may be metaphorical, but the pain of his war footing is most certainly real. Nor, it has to be said, have previous governments been terribly troubled by the double-speak required to justify their political ‘war’ mongering. As I commented here recently, the Climate Change Committee was set up to establish a legally founded cross-party consensus on climate change, in response to a report that leant heavily on the war metaphor for its justification. In the All-Party Parliamentary Climate Change Group report that led to the instigation of the Climate Change Act 2008, it was stated that “One need not necessarily invoke a wartime metaphor to appreciate the advantages of a joined-up approach to climate change policy across government.” Nevertheless, the use of that metaphor featured prominently. For example:

We have noted above the way a number of contributors referred to World War II, when there was a coalition government.  Comments in this area, some of which are reproduced in Box 5 below, extended to the immediate post-war period. The country “pulled together” and people accepted rationing “for the public good”.  The seriousness of the threat posed by climate change would, many argued, justify a wartime-like approach to tackling it, although not everyone felt that people would easily accept the austerity associated with rationing.

Amongst the comments in Box 5 was this gem from the Carbon Disclosure Project:

The global deaths from climate change over the next decades will quite completely dwarf the 50 million killed in World War II.  The sooner an all-party cabinet committee is formed, the more chance we will have to stem this hideous projected loss of life.

Meanwhile, in the real world, we currently find Russia on a real war footing in preparation for a real war. They are doing this because Putin sees a military expansion towards the West as the only means of tackling an existential threat to Russia. Over 7% of its GDP is dedicated to building up the military strength to prosecute that war, and NATO countries must now respond with their own war footing. How the UK intends doing its bit whilst being fully invested in the austerities and economic shock demanded by Ed Miliband’s ‘war’ against climate change is anyone’s guess.

The war metaphor can only get you so far. Try as they may to persuade the British people that severe weather events are akin to Hitler’s bombing campaign during World War II, the advocates for a war footing will always struggle. World War II was a real war with real bombs, and the tribulations accepted by the public were endured in the context of a formal declaration of war. Miliband and Monbiot et al can wax lyrically about war as much as they like, but the poetry isn’t going to create a reality. Not that it matters all that much. If we continue with Miliband’s grand plans, we will all be suffering the hardships of war soon enough.